706.04 Equitable relief. A transaction which does not satisfy one or more of the requirements of s. 706.02 may be enforceable in whole or in part under doctrines of equity, provided all of the elements of the transaction are clearly and satisfactorily proved and, in addition:
(1) The deficiency of the conveyance may be supplied by reformation in equity; or
(2) The party against whom enforcement is sought would be unjustly enriched if enforcement of the transaction were denied; or
(3) The party against whom enforcement is sought is equitably estopped from asserting the deficiency. A party may be so estopped whenever, pursuant to the transaction and in good faith reliance thereon, the party claiming estoppel has changed his or her position to the party's substantial detriment under circumstances such that the detriment so incurred may not be effectively recovered otherwise than by enforcement of the transaction, and either:
(a) The grantee has been admitted into substantial possession or use of the premises or has been permitted to retain such possession or use after termination of a prior right thereto; or
(b) The detriment so incurred was incurred with the prior knowing consent or approval of the party sought to be estopped.
History: 1993 a. 486.
A partnership created to deal in real estate is void unless conforming to the statute of frauds unless all parties have performed the contract, thus indicating their acquiescence in its terms. In re Estate of Schaefer, 72 Wis. 2d 600, 241 N.W.2d 607 (1976).
In an equity action seeking the conveyance of a farm under an oral agreement, the trial court properly ordered the conveyance under sub. (3) when the tenants gave up plans to build a home on other property, planted crops on the farm, and painted the interior of the farmhouse. Krauza v. Mauritz, 78 Wis. 2d 276, 254 N.W.2d 251 (1977).
Personal services to a vendor in reliance upon an oral agreement are not enough, standing alone, to constitute part performance. In the Matter of the Estate of Lade, 82 Wis. 2d 80, 260 N.W.2d 665 (1978).
Under sub. (3) (a), a grantee with knowledge of the facts giving rise to equitable estoppel against the grantor takes title subject to the estoppel. Brevig v. Webster, 88 Wis. 2d 165, 277 N.W.2d 321 (Ct. App. 1979).
The homestead defense under s. 706.02 (1) (f) is not defeated by this section, but a tort claim may exist against a signing spouse who misrepresents the non-signing spouse's acquiescence. Glinski v. Sheldon, 88 Wis. 2d 509, 276 N.W.2d 815 (1979).
Failure to execute a document can be cured under this section. The “unclean hands" defense is discussed. Security Pacific National Bank v. Ginkowski, 140 Wis. 2d 332, 410 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1987).
Once a deed has been properly executed and recorded, a court, in equity, may not alter the document when a party later expresses a different intent than was memorialized. Wynhoff v. Vogt, 2000 WI App 57, 233 Wis. 2d 673, 608 N.W.2d 400, 99-0103.
Section 706.04 does not refer to deficiencies under s. 706.03. Triple Interest, Inc. v. Motel 6, Inc. 414 F. Supp. 589 (1976).